Not so fair or balanced
07/14/2011
It’s a common occurrence for reporters to hear from people who say they don’t trust the media, that in their experiences, news organizations in the past have spun facts and quotes to sensationalize stories. Big news outlets such as Fox News — known to be ultra conservative — and MSNBC — known to be ultra liberal — have become notorious for the way they present what is supposed to be objective news reporting. Unfortunately, in the news biz, if you want people to pay attention, the rule of thumb is, if it bleeds it leads. A more contemporary meaning of this term is, the more upsetting the news is, the more people who will watch it. For organizations trying to present unbiased news stories, as legitimately controversial or boring as they may be at times, ethical reporters and editors have a tough hill to climb.
For the most part, the public at large appears to be divided into two categories — those who are persuaded by the political ideologies of their favorite news networks or those who are so jaded by the polarization and misrepresentation of facts in the media, they tune all of it out. Because of this sad state of affairs, the reporting that is supposed to inform and perhaps even effectuate change can often be overlooked.
To add insult to injury in the precarious situation of media companies today, the ever-burgeoning phone hacking scandal shrouding Rupert Murdoch’s British media conglomerate, News International, may not only have repercussions for his entire media empire, but for news organizations worldwide. Anyone who relies on any of Murdoch’s news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and FOX News, should be questioning the ethical and alleged legal boundaries that Murdoch’s editors crossed to get news that would draw major attention. (There is a sincere hope that, at the very least, the Wall Street Journal has maintained editors who pride themselves on ethical principles and standards. Murdoch purchased the paper in 2007.)
Over the last five years, various News International outlets have been under investigation for numerous allegations of invasion of privacy, including News of the World hacking into the cell phone of a missing schoolgirl who was found murdered and into the phones of members of the royal family, as well as illegally obtaining medical records of the child of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. If the Golden Rule has any meaning in this day and age, fans of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal should think long and hard before feeding the corporate machine that has no respect for individuals’ privacy, for fear that any of us could fall prey to such a lack of morals and ethics for the sake of a news story.
The responsibility and mission of news outlets is to act as watchdogs for the people, to educate them about what our leaders are doing, for better or for worse, and to enlighten, even motivate, people to get involved when the powers that be abuse their privileges. But with one more major hit to the industry of journalism, the lack of trust is sure to grow. It is a troubling situation, but there is hope, that in the end, instead of continuing to be spoon-fed information, the public will strive to become more educated about who’s controlling the media and its agendas in an effort to find the truth that is truly fair and balanced.
A bridge in principle
Last Monday night, Ventura’s City Council discussed the ongoing negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad regarding fees and repainting of the railroad bridge over Highway 101. The bridge, now roughly 50 years old, is an eyesore of graffiti for all parties involved. These negotiations were started several years ago and now four major issues remain: The annual fee paid to the city by the Union Pacific, the coverage of liability for and maintenance of the bridge moving forward, the term of the lease given to the railroad and the costs for painting the bridge.
The annual fee, which has been $8,000 per year, for which the city allows trains to travel over the roughly one mile of city owned land, is a bargain. At present, Union Pacific has offered to up that amount to $12,000 per year, but wants a 50 years agreement. In previous negotiations, the city has asked for upward of $90,000 and Union Pacific had offered up to $17,000 per year. The railroad also wants the city to accept any liability for lawsuits that might occur in the future as well as any costs to maintain the bridge moving forward. It is estimated that the city would have to pay between $15,000 and $30,000 per year in maintenance and security. We feel that the present deal is not good for Ventura.
The fee offering at $12,000 is too low both now and for the future. Accepting liability for any future lawsuits is dangerous for a city that is self insured. A 50-year lease is too long and may interfere with any plans the city has with capping the freeway to rejoin the downtown and beach areas in the future. Finally, the additional expense each year to maintain and secure the bridge offsets any additional revenue a new agreement would generate.
We agree that the city should continue negotiations with Union Pacific as well as review all legal options available. As was stated Monday night, Union Pacific is a tough negotiator. So too should the City of Ventura be.
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Related Articles
Comments
Re: Murdoch's empire--
UK politicians who were close to Murdoch and his minions at first issued mild tsk tsks over the breaches of law and decency in the UK. So did the police who were supposed to investigate but instead provided assistance in the wrongdoing. What brought Murdochgate to a head were ordinary British citizens on a group list for moms who, in their outrage targeted ADVERTISERS of News of the World.
One commentator suggested that the demise of the tabloid had much in common with the Egyptian uprising, wherein fed up ordinary people gathered through the new social media brought down the government.
The difference is that by aiming at the advertisers the British moms picked the most effective target without leaving their homes.
Think about it. Those of us who object to the Faux in Fox might do the same. Beck has already gone via this route.
I wish folks got as mad about the govt.'s massive violations of 10's of millions of peoples' privacy and other rights (including outright murder) as they did about NI's minor, in comparison, hijinks.
I always keep in mind that EVERYONE has a perspective and an agenda when reporting the news.
I think its been long established that a very large majority in the media have a very strong 'liberal' bias, though FoxLies has balanced this out somewhat.
Very few people are interested in pursuing the truth and the vast majority of MSM has become nothing more than a vehicle through which political policy is promoted, be it the long-dubunked global warming hoax/hysteria or wars--both policies which, of course, require more govt.
The hoax is the denial of climate change funded by Exxon and the Koch family.
There never was a liberal media. This is established only in your mind and among those who send their brains out for daily shrinkage to fit by Fox and the rest of the Murdoch minions. And yes, I read Bernard Goldberg's whiny, stat challenged instabook.
What there was and are are shallow information channels interested in not troubling their a. corporate owners b. advertisers c. those who are in power and can affect access--mustn't bite the hand that feeds you even if it feeds you lies and bull. Random example: "Saddam Hussein has WMD."
For intelligent coverage try-BBC, Aljazeera--both available twice daily on KCET or NPR, which is still available on Cal-Lutheran's radio station.
P.S. WSJ's head just had it lopped off as a by-product of the UK scandal. It remains to be seen whether any wrong doing of major consequence occurred in this country.
I suspect Sully's "sincere hope" will be disappointed.